Missed Inbounder Assists

[Edxu]

At the recent North Bay Regional, 610 tried to implement the "Pin Possession" tactic, which involves a robot ramming their ball against the wall, in order for it to be counted as possession by trapping.

On the first day that we implemented this for our matches, the refs were unaware of how it worked, and then didn't really pay attention to our robot.

However, we specifically asked each human player performing this technique to get a referee's attention as they were performing the pin possession.

While it may have been the ref at fault for not paying complete attention to their field, I think that if your human player was to get their attention and have them notice your possession as you do it, they would have no problems giving you the assist.

The results of our "Pin Possession" strategy over the day: The refs gradually got used to paying close attention to the ball as it's being inbounded, which gave the pinning robot a much easier time. The pin time was generally between 1 and 3 seconds, which is ample time for a human player to drop the ball, get the attention of a referee and yell "PIN" to them.

I think that the strategy employed should have been conveyed to the ref closest to your human player zone, so that they could've paid special attention.

[Gregor]

A piece of advice. When doing this inbound from the side across from the head ref and scoring table. That referee is the one tracking your assists. If you inbound from the same side as the head ref/scoring table, the referee tracking your assists will be across the field.

Originally Posted by FrankJ

If it goes through the robot without the robot controlling it, I would not call it a possession.

Are you using your definition of possess, or the manual's?

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Gregor

A piece of advice. When doing this inbound from the side across from the head ref and scoring table. That referee is the one tracking your assists. If you inbound from the same side as the head ref/scoring table, the referee tracking your assists will be across the field.



Are you using your definition of possess, or the manual's?

From the manual:
POSSESS: (for a ROBOT) to carry (move while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT), herd (repeated pushing or bumping), launch (impel BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL.

Also from the manual:
Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by mathking

From the manual:
POSSESS: (for a ROBOT) to carry (move while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT), herd (repeated pushing or bumping), launch (impel BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL.

Emphasis mine. I don't see any way this could be argued to have not been a possession. The robot launched the ball because the ball doesn't come out without the spinning rollers, which are a mechanism in motion relative to the robot, and the ball is definitely going in a desired direction to a desired location.

I think the more likely scenario is that the ref missed it because it happened so fast. Alternatively, another possession zone could have been missed, although that is unlikely since 51 took it and scored it. Even though no penalties were called, the referee that would have been watching your possessions may have had his/her attention elsewhere watching a situation that ended up being a no-call.

[GBK]

Adam, I will start out by saying that I hope what I say does not end up hurting us this next weekend. I believe that what you did with the rookie bot is legal and should be considered possession. However looking at the video and not considering the back story, it looks like the ball bounced out of the inbound robot and that is what a ref would have seen. A move like this is a good one and in a game like this one needs to be pointed out to anyone including a ref that is not aware of what is actually going on.
That being said, see you in Lansing.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by GBK

Adam, I will start out by saying that I hope what I say does not end up hurting us this next weekend. I believe that what you did with the rookie bot is legal and should be considered possession. However looking at the video and not considering the back story, it looks like the ball bounced out of the inbound robot and that is what a ref would have seen. A move like this is a good one and in a game like this one needs to be pointed out to anyone including a ref that is not aware of what is actually going on.
That being said, see you in Lansing.

No offense taken, hopefully we will be able to play together in Lansing. I will say that I am 100% certain that the ball did not bounce out of 4994. I can say that because I was watching the inbound, instead of correcting our driver not to defend 1718 in high gear....thus not popping our main breaker and being dead for the final minute of the match.

Looking forward to Lansing!

I will say that we had been running this same identical play for the previous (8) elimination matches, so it was not the first time the ref crew was seeing this strategy play out.

[mutantlog]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

Emphasis mine. I don't see any way this could be argued to have not been a possession. The robot launched the ball because the ball doesn't come out without the spinning rollers, which are a mechanism in motion relative to the robot, and the ball is definitely going in a desired direction to a desired location.

I think the more likely scenario is that the ref missed it because it happened so fast. Alternatively, another possession zone could have been missed, although that is unlikely since 51 took it and scored it. Even though no penalties were called, the referee that would have been watching your possessions may have had his/her attention elsewhere watching a situation that ended up being a no-call.

Having watched the original video, and having called possessions along with Gregor, I know this was a point of discussion for us as well. We agreed that if the rollers were going that it should be called a possession; however, in some of the robots I saw, it almost looked like the ball was being inbounded directly through the frame of the robot. We agreed to call it as possession, but I could easily see how a ref would not call it, as if the ref isn't familiar with your design, it may look as the ball passed through by mistake rather than intent.

[GBK]

Adam, knowing the back story, I have no doubt it was a possession as well. I just hope my suggesting you point it out in advance to a ref or anyone else, does not end up costing us a match against you, if that is how it works out.

Would be good to play with you guys again though.

[JB987]

Glenn and Adam,
We also thought pre match discussion with refs would help them understand our assist strategy and help reduce the number of missed assists calls...result was several more matches with missed third assists awarded and over a 100 pts not counted all together. Hopefully we can do a better job "educating" our refs next week

[Citrus Dad]

This is part of a bigger problem that refs are not able to count all of the scoring. We've seen this both at our regionals and on video we've watched--entire cycles are not being scored, even including the goal. We saw that in reviewing one of 254's matches at Waterloo, where we could replay the video to confirm it. FIRST will have to do something to address this at World's when the play will speed up dramatically.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by JB987

Glenn and Adam,
We also thought pre match discussion with refs would help them understand our assist strategy and help reduce the number of missed assists calls...result was several more matches with missed third assists awarded and over a 100 pts not counted all together. Hopefully we can do a better job "educating" our refs next week

As a spectator for matches in between our matches, I found myself way more skilled in seeing missed call, if any. I guess the more matches you see, the better you get.
Its too bad this game puts a lot of work on the refs to see, determine, and input score while watching for game play.
With so many teams at CMPS and only 10 matches, ties will occur in the top 8, and assists essentially become win points.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by waialua359

As a spectator for matches in between our matches, I found myself way more skilled in seeing missed call, if any. I guess the more matches you see, the better you get.
Its too bad this game puts a lot of work on the refs to see, determine, and input score while watching for game play.
With so many teams at CMPS and only 10 matches, ties will occur in the top 8, and assists essentially become win points.

I agree that this will be an issue. It's really tough for refs to see everything, and if a team notices that assists aren't being counted properly, what are the refs supposed to do? They aren't just going to trust what a random team member saw, and even if there is amazingly clear video evidence, they can't look at it. It's also not right to just say no to a team who says a match score is wrong. A replay might be a possible, but it ruins any surprise match strategy, and often doesn't give teams enough time to reset their robot.

Just out of curiosity, what's the policy on changing scores? Can a score be undone during a match? After a match? In eliminations/qualifications? Autonomous in teleop?

[mizscience]

Reffing at the DC regional, there was a bot like this and us refs were reminded by our head ref (who had been tipped about this by someone else - not sure if it was the team, the inspectors, someone else) before any match with them to look out for them launching the ball and to count it as a possession. It greatly helped us in scoring matches with that bot.

Like others have stated, the refs are human and trying their best to be as quick and accurate as possible, but they can miss things in the chaos. Just point out the launching capability of your bot to the head ref on practice day and it should help the refs a great deal when scoring your matches!

[Jared Russell]

At this point, I have basically accepted that 5-10% of assists will be missed. Consider it the cost of doing business

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

At this point, I have basically accepted that 5-10% of assists will be missed. Consider it the cost of doing business

Agreed. Which makes me think that perhaps it's time to go back to a game that can be scored at the end of the match with static field conditions. (Think 2007, 2009¹, 2011², 2013³) Having the ability to recycle game objects into play opens up a wealth of options when it comes to game design, but until FIRST can prove that they can score matches with a much higher degree of accuracy, it might be time to scale back how these games are scored. This isn't a criticism, bu merely a simple understanding that there will always be scoring errors when scoring must be done in real time. Designing games to minimize the number of quick real time scoring decisions that need to be made will make things easier for the referees, and result in fewer complaints from teams.

1. Even with all scored balls being situated in trailers at the end of matches, there were still incorrectly scored matches. However, it was rare enough to be understandable.
2. Ignore the automated minibot scoring.
3. See #1, although these rare errors almost blew up on Einstein...